[cluberti]

jcarle, on Sep 1 2007, 01:57 AM, said:

So WUD is not infringing on the EULA since it doesn't redistribute the updates but instead downloads them directly from Microsoft onto the user's computer. WUD acts in the same way as a non-microsoft browser would, like Firefox. No?

The more I think about it, the more I think that it's a grey area, but there are other products out there do the same type of thing (like BigFix, Tivoli, etc - not to mention SMS/SCOM from Microsoft that can do this), so I'd say there's no harm in it, as there's commercial precedent. I could always be wrong, mind you , but I think in this case since WUD doesn't distribute anything, it should be OK.

[patchworks]

So, do you still wasting your time/energies for proprietary stuff ?

Just a question: WHY ?

Change your souls, switch to ReactOS !!!

[Legolash2o]

jcarle, on Sep 1 2007, 06:57 AM, said:

So WUD is not infringing on the EULA since it doesn't redistribute the updates but instead downloads them directly from Microsoft onto the user's computer. WUD acts in the same way as a non-microsoft browser would, like Firefox. No?

Jcarle has a good point

This post has been edited by legolash2o: 06 October 2007 - 08:01 AM

[CelticWhisper]

pppx00, on Aug 29 2007, 10:28 AM, said:

If M$ takes RyanVM Update Pack down, I'll switch to Kubuntu and Windows XP will be for games only.

If M$ takes RyanVM down, I'll switch to Kubuntu and give all my games away. Games aren't worth it to me to keep supporting a business who pulls crap like that.

[cluberti]

CelticWhisper, on Oct 16 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

If M$ takes RyanVM down, I'll switch to Kubuntu and give all my games away. Games aren't worth it to me to keep supporting a business who pulls crap like that.

I'm guessing if they hadn't made the CDs and SOLD them, they probably wouldn't have drawn ire (or, at least not yet). How is Microsoft not allowing an unlicensed 3rd party to resell their code "pulling crap"? If you resold Citrix hotfixes (for a profit, no less) on CD, would it not be OK if Citrix forced you to stop?

[puntoMX]

Some sites, and not those from the manufacture, are asking cash to download drivers from there site, I hate that too... Free updates, drivers, firmware or software sold when it’s for free normally, even when it’s on CD/DVD. And then there is the “rule” and “law” part…

I stand behind cluberti here, although M$ has a big mouth .

[CelticWhisper]

cluberti, on Oct 16 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

CelticWhisper, on Oct 16 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

If M$ takes RyanVM down, I'll switch to Kubuntu and give all my games away. Games aren't worth it to me to keep supporting a business who pulls crap like that.

I'm guessing if they hadn't made the CDs and SOLD them, they probably wouldn't have drawn ire (or, at least not yet).

It's that "not yet" part that worries me.

Quote

How is Microsoft not allowing an unlicensed 3rd party to resell their code "pulling crap"?

It isn't. But there's always been an element of control-freakism behind many of the things Microsoft does, and I think they would have gone this route eventually anyway. The primary reason they cited wasn't even the selling of CDs, it was that they wanted people to get updates from "trusted sources only," i.e. their own website that's entirely under their control. Whether it's for benevolent purposes (protecting against malware) or not (stealth updates), the result is the same: needing the blessing of Gates to get your patches.

Also, frankly, I like AutoPatcher more than I like Microsoft or Windows, and so I'm inclined to side with Kaladis on this one, based solely on my subjective opinions and fancies. Even if I weren't an AP fan by experience, it's obvious that AP has good intentions in what it tries to provide, and MSFT putting the kibosh on that and forcing users of varying degrees of Internet connectivity to download multi-hundred-megabyte batches of updates, when not all of them know how to slipstream said updates (or are not experienced enough to be comfortable doing so) seems petty and unnecessary, regardless of whatever anti-malware intentions they claim to hold. If they'd release update rollup packs more often, like they did post-SP4 for Win2K, maybe it wouldn't be so much of a problem, but as it is they're really just hamstringing users who want the extra convenience of having a one-stop shop for patches.

If the AP folks were selling those CDs at the cost of blank media and shipping, MSFT can go pound sand for all I care. If they were selling them at a profit, then I'll readily agree that MSFT has a legitimate complaint. Still, though, they should have demanded the CD sales to stop, rather than demanding the plug be pulled on AutoPatcher.

As for RyanVM, I would take any actions against it or other companion utilities like it (nLite/vLite/WPI/HFSlip) to be the start of a witch-hunt. If AP remains an isolated case, I'm willing to accept (over time) that maybe someone did have concerns over malware or that it was the selling of CDs that set off the people at MSFT. However, if more apps like it start coming under attack, it's going to be very hard to believe that MSFT isn't just being petty and controlling like it seems their nature to be. Especially when these are free, safe, and OPTIONAL utilities that are only there to help and that do no more harm to MSFT than pointing out shortcomings in the default Windows installation/update/customization facilities.

[cluberti]

CelticWhisper, on Oct 18 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

If the AP folks were selling those CDs at the cost of blank media and shipping, MSFT can go pound sand for all I care. If they were selling them at a profit, then I'll readily agree that MSFT has a legitimate complaint.

That was the stated reason, that they were skimming a profit above and beyond media and shipping costs. I don't know if it was true or not, because obviously I don't know how much it cost them to produce these, but that was the reason stated.

CelticWhisper, on Oct 18 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

As for RyanVM, I would take any actions against it or other companion utilities like it (nLite/vLite/WPI/HFSlip) to be the start of a witch-hunt. If AP remains an isolated case, I'm willing to accept (over time) that maybe someone did have concerns over malware or that it was the selling of CDs that set off the people at MSFT.

I'm pretty sure that other utilities that point users to the microsoft download servers don't have to worry about being "gone after", but projects with the visibility of AP and supposedly making money off of Microsoft code (patches), that's gonna get you shut down.